THE EVIDENCE

The
disputed structure

For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the historical
question is surprisingly simple: was there or was there not a Hindu temple at
the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to build a mosque? The
answer is also equally simple  'yes'. There are two parts to the question:
was there a Hindu temple, and was it destroyed and a mosque known as Babri
Masjid built in its place. Again the answer is  'yes' to both questions. It
is as simple as that.

This is what I shall try and make clear in this section, by presenting
the latest and the bare minimum amount of details necessary. A great deal has
been written about all this, most of which is unnecessary while some of it is
meant intentionally to confuse. The reader will see that when properly
presented, there is little room for confusion.

There are basically two sources for studying the history: literary
sources and the archaeological record. Following the demolition on December 6,
1992, a great deal of archeological and historical information has come to
light. Thus, much of the published material, as well as the controversy about
previous temples at the site has been rendered moot by new discoveries following
the demolition. What is presented here is a summary of the latest evidence 
literary as well as archaeological.

Literary
evidence

The latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia
Britannica, in its article on Ayodhya tells us:

Rama's birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the
Moghul emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple. (Article on
Ayodhya, Encyclopaedia Britannica volume
1, 1985: Fifteenth Edition.)

The Britannica, though generally regarded as an authoritative reference
work is not a primary source. When we turn to the primary sources, the material
available on the topic is so voluminous that one despairs of ever obtaining a
simple, easily comprehensible account. One recent author (Harsh Narain, below)
cites more than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi,
Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. And I have identified several not found in
his work. So the problem one is faced with is not a lack of material, but one of
selection.

Fortunately, Sita Ram Goel has compiled a two-volume magnum
opus under the heading Hindu Temples:
What happened to them? The second volume is particularly valuable in that it
presents a comprehensive summary of the Islamic record, quoting chapter and
verse from the primary sources. Even a cursory glance through these volumes
leaves little doubt regarding either the destructive record of Islam in India,
or the record of dishonesty and venality of the Secularists.

The two volumes by Goel are an invaluable source for researchers, though,
typically enough they are studiously ignored by Secularist historians and their
allies in the media. For the lay reader, Goel has provided also a highly
readable summary of the two volumes in his book Islam
vis-a-vis Hindu Temples. It is recommended reading for every serious student
of Islam in India.

As far as Ayodhya itself is concerned, the most comprehensive discussion
of the primary material available is probably the book The
Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh Narain.
We next go on to examine several of these sources provided by Harsh Narain.

These sources are so numerous that we can only survey a few. But even
this survey will suffice to show that until recently, until the Secularists
created the so-called 'controversey', no author  Hindu, Muslim, European or
British official  had questioned that a temple existed on the spot which had
been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may begin with a few references from
European writers provided by Harsh Narain. These are from published sources that
are widely available.

A. Fόhrer
in his The Monumental Antiquities and
Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey
of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: 'Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930
during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have
been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in
the construction of Babar's Masjid.' [This is supported by archaeology, as we
shall soon see.]

H.R.
Neville in the Barabanki District
Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple 'was
destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.' Neville, in his Fyzabad
District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; 'The
Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar
came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and
on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar's mosque. The materials of the
old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns
were in good preservation.' [Again supported by archaeological finds.]

One could cite many more in similar vein, but these examples should
suffice for recent European records. When we reach back in time, what we find
particularly interesting are the accounts attributed to Guru Nanak. He was a
contemporary of Babar, and an eyewitness to his vandalism. Nanak condemned him
in the strongest terms. Harsh Narain writes (pp 14-15):

Guru
Nanak, according to Bhai Man Singh's Pothi
Janam Sakhi, said to have been composed in 1787 Anno Vikrami/1730 A.D.,
visited Ayodhya and said to his Muslim disciple Mardana: 'Mardania!
eh Ajudhia nagari Sri Ramachandraji Ji ki hai. So, chal, iska darsan kari'e. Translation:
'Mardana! this Ayodhya city belongs to Sri Ramachandra Ji. So let us have its darsana.'

This indicates that Nanak visited Ayodhya shortly before the
destruction of the Rama temple by Babar. Man Singh's book was written two
hundred years later, which means that he was drawing upon existing traditions or
some other source relating to Nanak's visit to Ayodhya. But another work by Baba
Sukhbasi Ram gives a similar account, again suggesting that Nanak visited
Ayodyha before the temple was destroyed by his contemporary, the invader Babar
whose atrocities he condemned. 'These kings are nothing but butchers' said
Nanak, refering to the Moghuls and others in his time.

Before I get to the Islamic evidence, it is worth looking at an Indian
account from the twelfth-thirteenth century period attesting to the atrocities
of the Islamic invaders. It is preserved in the 'Bhuvana-kosha' section of the Garuda Purana, which throws light on the invasions of the Mlecchas
and the Saindhavas (Arab occupiers of Sindh). The 'Kumarika-khanda' of the Skanda
Purana speaks ofinvaders based in
Mulasthana or the modern Multan. So does the Kurma
Purana.

Returning to the Bhuvana-Kosha of the Garuda
Purana, the Mlecchas of the Himalayas and the Turushkas (Turks) of the north
were the Ghaznavids and the Ghurids. In the Introduction to the Garuda
Purana, the well known Puranic scholar A.B.L. Awasthi points out:

The Mlechchhas of the Himalaya region and the Turushkas of the North
mentioned in the Bhuvana Kosha section [of the Garuda
Purana] also reflect upon the Turkish conquest of Northwestern India by the
Ghaznavids. The passage found in the Garuda
Purana that the country was threatened by the Dasyus (dasyutkrishta
janapadah) is also very significant and it reflects upon the age of terror
and turmoil caused by the Turkish invasions.

The alien invasions of such people, who destroyed the shrines and the
roots of religion, viz, Deities, Brahmanas and cows, and also carried away the
ladies. They defiled the tirthas, which also caused great terror.

The Pauranikas accepted the challenge and exhorted the Kshatriyas of
accepting the svadharma of giving
protection to country and culture. ...

The freedom of the country was also imperilled after the fall of
Prithviraja III at the hands of Muhammad Ghori after the second battle of Terain
(1192 A.D.). The Pauranika points to the political blunder of the Chahamana
ruler who was succumbed in [Sic] sensuous slumber in the company of his newly
acquired wife Samyogita [or Samyukta].

We shall soon see that this is not very different from what Muslim
chroniclers themselves tell us. But the Secularists would have us believe that
there was no persecution and no mass destruction of temples. Going by their
logic, both the victims and the perpetrators were subject to identical
fantasies!

Another point frequently made by the Secularists and their allies is that
during the Islamic period, there was little animosity between Hindus and
Muslims, that is to say, the two communities lived harmoniously together. The
animosities that led eventually to the Partition of India, according to the
Secularists, was the result of the British policy of 'divide and rule'. Well,
here is what Alberuni, who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazna on his numerous
campaigns into India had to say nearly a thousand years ago:

Yamin-addaula Mahmud [Ghaznavi] marched into India during a
period of thirty years and more. ... Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the
country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like
atoms of dust scattered in all directions. ... Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion
of all the Muslims. (Emphasis added.)

So it was not just the wealth that was looted; Mahmud was responsible for
uprooting Hindu learning from the places he invaded. This is not very different
from the account given in the Bhuvana-Kosha of the Garuda
Purana and other Hindu chronicles. From this we can see that the hostility
between the Hindus and the Muslims has a thousand year history that surely
cannot be blamed on the British!

It is unnecessary to dwell too much on the documentary evidence since all
questions about the pre-existence of the temple at the site of the Babri Masjid
have been settled by archaeology, especially following its domolition on
December 6, 1992. Actually the primary interest relating to the Muslim records
is not so much in what they have to say, but in how there have been systematic
attempts by Islamic and Secularist interests in recent years to distort and
conceal them. This is what Arun Shourie has called 'Hideaway Communalism'. We
shall be looking at this phenomenon in the next chapter, but here are a few
excerpts beginning with Harsh Narain's observations on recent negationist
efforts.

All
relevant British government records followed by District Gazetteer of Faizabad
compiled and published by the Congress government in 1960 declare with one voice
that the so-called Babri mosque at Ayodhya is standing on the debris of a
Ramajanmasthan temple demolished by the order of Babar in 1528. Syed Shahabuddin,
JNU historians, and self-styled 'secular' scholars and leaders are hotly
contesting the proposition, contending that the existence and demolition of a
temple is a myth floated by the British in pursuance of their policy of divide
and rule. ... (p 102)

Now I
proceed to cite certain purely Muslim sources beyond the sphere of British
influence to show that the Babri mosque has displaced a Hindu temple ... (pp
103-4)

Then Harsh Narain goes on to cite a few significant examples. I will
refer to a few  and a few others will be noted later. The interested reader
on the Ayodhya dispute can refer to Narain's book. Sita Ram Goel's two-volume magnum
opus gives a more comprehensive summary of the record of the Islamic
vandalism in India. We shall be concerned, however, mainly with Ayodhya. (JNU is
the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi which is considered the Meccah of
Secularists with AMU, the Aligarh Muslim University a close second.)

In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious war) for the
recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid
which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during
the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one
Mirza Jan, was a participant in that failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada
was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan
tells us:

... wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the
establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas'ud Ghazi's rule, the Muslim rulers in India
built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu'azzins, teachers and
store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise
they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation
(infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama's
father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a
big mosque, ... Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923
A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p 105)

Harsh Narain goes on to add: "It must be borne in mind that Mirza
Jan claims to write all this on the basis of older records (kutub-i
sabigah) and contemporary accounts." Except for its tone of triumph the
account is not very different from what the Garuda
Purana has to say. Similar accounts are found in a few other Puranas as
already noted.

Another interesting piece of evidence unearthed by Harsh Narain is a
chapter in the book Muraqqah-i-Khusravi, known
also as the Tarikh-i-Avadh. Its author
is one Shaikh Azmat Ali Kakorwi Nami (1811-1893). He was a contemporary of Nawab
Wajid Ali Shah and an eyewitness to the events of the era, including the failed
Jihad to recover Hanuman Garhi from the Hindus. His work was completed in 1869,
but languished in manuscript form for over a century in the Tagore Library in
Lucknow. It saw the light of day only in 1986 when it was published by Dr. Zaki
Kakorawi. But this was a censored version in which the F.A. Ahmad Memorial
Committee which funded it removed crucial parts. The reason given for this
extraordinary action was that Kakorawi's edition contained accounts pertaining
to the Jihad against Hanuman Garhi. This, the Committee found politically
unacceptable.

Fortunately, a year later (1987), Kakorawi published the missing portion
at his own expense under the title Amir
Ali Shahid aur Ma'rakah-i-Hanuman Garhi. The author pointedly observed that
"suppression of any part of any old composition or compilation like this
can create difficulties and misunderstandings for future historians."
(Harsh Narain: p 106) May our Secularists heed his words! What is there in the
work that made the F.A. Ahmad Committee so sensitive? Well, here is the passage
for the reader to judge.

According to old records, it has been a rule with the Muslim rulers from
the first to build mosques, monastaries, and inns, spread Islam, and (put a
stop) to non-Islamic practices, wherever they found prominence of (kufr).
Accordingly, even as they cleared up Mathura, Brindaban, etc. from the rubbish
of non-Islamic practices, the Babari Mosque was built up in 923 (?) A.H. under
the patronage of Sayyid Musa Ashiqan in the Janmasthan temple (butkhane
Janmasthan mein) in Faizabad-Avadh, which was a great place of (worship) and
capital of Rama's father. (Harsh Narain: p 106)

In another work also known as Tarikh-i-Avadhi,
by one Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909) tells us:

Babar
built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of
Ramachandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyad Ashikhan, and
Sita-ki-Rasoi is situated adjascent to it. The date of construction of the
mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH) [or 1528
AD with the correction]. Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side
stands that temple. It is said at the time
of the conquest of Islam there were three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was
the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and Treta ka
Thakur. Babar built the mosque having demolished Janmasthan. (History versus Casuistry, p 17; emphasis added.)

The translation is again by the redoubtable Zaki Kakorawi. It is
important to note that the conscientious author of Tarikh-i-Avadhi
used as many as eighty one books and
manuscripts. The fact they were available to him in 1909 suggests that a few of
them might lie concealed in some libraries and archives. In fact, as late as
1923, the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written
by the Hindu scholar Lachmi Narain Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms
all of the above details. The book leaves one with the impression that many
sources were still available to them, especially to the Maulvi who served as
Pandit Lachmi Narain's munshi.It is to be hoped that they are not being destroyed in the interests of
'Secularism'.

The Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1881)
confirms the construction of three Moghul mosques at Ayodhya on the site of
three celebrated shrines: Janmasthan, Swargadwar and Treta-ka-Thakur.
Archaeological Survey of India tells us that Mir Khan (on Babar's orders) built
the mosque at Janmasthan using many of its columns. Aurangazeb had the other two
mosques built. We see therefore that demolition of temples and replacing them
with mosques was a systematic practice under Moghuls. It was simply a
continuation of earlier policies of all Muslim rulers as both Hindu and Muslim
records testify.

This brings us to a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal
Nasa'ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a grand-daughter of the Moghul
emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada previously cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines
from it which tell us:

... keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim
rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in
realization of Jizyah, grant no
exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on 'Id days and waiting on
foot outside mosques till end of prayer ... and 'keep in constant use for Friday
and congregational prayer the mosquesbuilt
up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura,
Banaras and Avadh ... (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)

Spoken like a true child of Aurangazeb!

Mirza Jan is not the only writer to cite this work. Mirza Rajab 'Ali Beg
Surur in his work describing the destruction of the Rama temple at Ayodhya
states that in the Sahifah-i Bahadurshahi (as
the work was also known) "it has come to be described in detail with
reference to year and date. Whoever may choose may look into it." (Harsh
Narain: pp 25-26) This last remark suggests that the work was widely available
in the nineteenth century, possibly even in print. It evidently contained
details concerning the destruction of the temple and the building of the Babri
mosque at Janmabhumi.

Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the
mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or
Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar's Memoir
mentions Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription
were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor loss.
In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for instance in Mrs.
Beveridge's translation of Babur-Nama published
in 1926.

Overwhelming as all this evidence is, the archaeological evidence is even
stronger.

Until recently, much of the evidence was literary, based on accounts in
chronicles, supplemented by some archaeology around the site. Even then,
archaeology left little doubt regarding the existence of a previous temple at
the site at which the Babri Masjid is situated. Ayodhya has drawn the attention
of competent archaeologists including a few internationally known experts like
B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta. As a result, the volume of data available is huge
running into several volumes. Some of it has probably been rendered obsolete by
discoveries following the demolition of December 6, 1992. They settle once and
for all the question: Was there a Hindu temple at the site before Babri Masjid
was built in 1528?

Let us next look at what archaeology has to say about the Ayodhya site.
The first point to note is that Ayodhya lies in a region that is generously
watered, and has therefore been densely populated since time immemorial. As a
result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more difficult, and has not been on
the same scale as at Harappan sites lying a thousand miles to the west. And for
the same reasons, luck plays a large role in the success of any exploration at
Ayodhya, which is true of archaeology in general. Here is what a leading
archaeologist, Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to
say about recent excavations at Ayodhya. Gupta probably has the most extensive
experience among the archaeologists to have explored the site.

From 1975 through 1980, the
Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a
former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of
excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which
the so-called "Janmasthan Masjid" or Babri Mosque once stood and was
later demolished on 6th December 1992.

This is an interesting observation: the Babri Mosque was known also as
the 'Janmashtan Masjid' even to the Muslims! Obviously they believed it to be
the birthplace of Rama  not Babar. We shall see later that until the
Secularists showed them the value of it, the Muslims never used Negationism; far
from it, they took great pride in their record of vandalization of Hindu sacred
places. To continue with Gupta's account:

At
Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places to
ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of the
township was at least three thousand years old, if not more ... . When seen in
the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing
in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the
'mosque', Prof. Lal felt that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu
temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD ...

On further stratigraphic and other evidence, Lal concluded that the
pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and
the 16th centuries. "He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and
decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas, purnaghattas, double lotus flowers
etc."

(See below.)

Pillar
bases found at the site of the 'mosque'

What this means is that Lal had found evidence for possibly two temples,
one that existed before the 13th century, and another between the 13th and the
16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. We
know that this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor's
defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This was
apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in the 16th century
by Babar.

Impressive as these discoveries are, Lal had actually been somewhat
unlucky. He had barely missed striking a trench containing a treasure trove of
Hindu artifacts from the medieval period. As Gupta tells us:

Prof.
Lal had hard luck at Ramajanmabhumi. His southern trenches missed a huge pit
with 40 and odd sculptures just by 10 to 12 feet. But he did get the pillar
bases of the pre-16th century demolished-temple which others did not get.

Excavation was resumed on July 2, 1992 by S.P. Gupta, Y.D. Sharma, K.M.
Srivastava and other senior archaeologists. This was less than six months before
the demolition (which of course no one then knew was going to take place). Their
particular interest lay in the forty-odd Hindu artifacts that had been
discovered in the pit missed by Lal. These finds had been widely reported in the
newspapers. Gupta, a former Director of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on
medieval artifacts had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us:

The
team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th
through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late Pratiharas and early
Gahadvals. The kings of these two dynasties hailing from Kannauj had ruled over
Avadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh successively during that period.

These
objects included a number of amakalas, i.e.,
the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top
of the spire or the main shikhara ... This
is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval
period and no one can miss it  it is there in the Orissa temples such as
Konarak, in the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples
of Rajasthan such as Osian.

There was other evidence  of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings,
door jambs with floral patterns and others  leaving little doubt regarding
the existence of a 10th - 12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya. So
Lal had been right in believing there was an earlier temple  prior to the one
destroyed by Babar. More discoveries were made following the demolition of
December 6. All these discoveries leave no doubt at all about the true picture.

The
discovery of a number of Kushana period terracotta images of gods and goddesses
earlier made it clear, first, that at the Janmabhumi site Hindu temples were
built several times during the 2000 years with
the interval of only 450 years, from 1528 to 1992, when the Muslims destroyed
the temple and occupied the site and also built a new structure they called 'Janmabhumi
Masjid' in their own record; ...

(See below.)

And finally, the temple was destroyed sometime after the 13th century AD,
in every likelihood in the early 16th century, as is fully borne out by the
inscriptions of Mir Baqi found fixed in the disputed structure from back in
time, during the British days as is clear from the accounts given by Mrs. A.
Beveridge in her translation of Babur-Nama
published in 1926.

Kushana period artifacts from the 'mosque' site

So archaeology also leaves little doubt about the existence of the prior
temple. Then came the explosion of Decembr 6, 1992. This demolished not only the
Babri Masjid but the whole case of the Secularists and their allies. It revealed
a major inscription that settles the question once and for all.

Discoveries
at the site II: the Hari-Vishnu inscription

The demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically,
providing further support to the traditional accounts  both Hindu and Muslim.
Some of the kar-sevaks, no doubt influenced by all the publicity about history
and archaeology, went on to pick up more than two hundred pieces of stone slabs
with writing upon them. These proved to belong to extremely important
inscriptions, more than a thousand years old. In effect, the kar-sevaks
had done what archaeologists should have done years ago; they had unearthed
important inscriptions  in howsoever a crude form  something that should
have been done years ago by professional historians and archaeologists. The
inscriptions, even the few that have been read so far, shed a great deal of
light on the history of not only Ayodhya and its environs, but all of North
India in the early Medieval, and even the late ancient period.

In any other society, these inscriptions and other archaeological
artifacts would not only be greeted with glee  as Biblical scholars did the
Dead Sea Scrolls  but there would also be a mad scramble among researchers to
see what new discoveries they could make. But the Secularists' reaction was the
exact opposite of this: they wanted the whole thing suppressed. They claimed,
without examination, that all the two-hundred and fifty odd pieces of
epigraphical records were forgeries planted during the demolition, and demanded
a police investigation. This is a point worth noting: they wanted not an investigation of
artifacts by scholars, but a police
investigation.

To return to the inscriptional finds, it will be years before scholars
can come up with a complete picture, but they have already yielded much valuable
information. Here is what S.P. Gupta found upon examining the two-hundred and
fifty or so stone pieces with writing upon them:

Not
all were ancient, since scores of them, generally rectangular marble tiles, bore
the dedicatory inscriptions in the Devanagari script of the 20th century.
However, at least three dozens of them were certainly ancient, belonging to the
period bracketed between 10th and 12th centuries AD. (In The
Ayodhya Reference: pp 117-18)

The most important of these deciphered so far is the Hari-Vishnu
inscription that clinches the whole issue of the temple. It is written in 12th
century AD Devanagari script and belongs therefore to the period before the
onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD and later). Gupta tells us:

This inscription, running in as many as 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5
ft. long, 2 ft. broad and 2.5 inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a
very heavy tablet ... Three-fourths of the tablet is found obliterated
anciently. The last line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected
to chipping off. A portion of the central part is found battered, maybe someone
tried to deface it anciently. The patination [tarnishing including wearout] is,
however, uniform all over the surface, even in areas where once there were
inscriptions. (op. cit. pp 118-19)

(See below.)

The 12 century 'Hari-Vishnu' inscription found at the 'mosque site'

Gupta is an archaeologist and not an epigraphist trained to read ancient
inscriptions. It was examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the
Epigraphical Society of India. Shastri gave the following summary. What the
inscription tells us is of monumental significance to the history of Medieval
India.

The
inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very small
portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the
eleventh-twelfth century AD. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions
which have been fully deciphered and read are
of great historical significance and value ... [It has since been fully deciphered.] It was evidently put up on
the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text
inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that
a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones ... , and
beautified with a golden spire ... unparalleled by any other temple built by
earlier kings ... This wonderful temple ... was built in the temple-city of
Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. ... Line 19 describes god Vishnu as
destroying king Bali ... and the ten
headed personage (Dashanana, i.e., Ravana). (op. cit. 119; emphasis mine. Original Sanskrit quotes given by
Shastri are left out.)

Need we say more  a temple for Hari-Vishnu who killed the ten-headed
Ravana, in the temple city of Ayodhya? So Ayodhya was known as a temple city
even then; Saketa was the ancient name of the district. The inscription confirms
what archaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found about the existence of a
temple complex. And yet the Secularists and their allies have been telling the
world that there was no temple!

Part of dwara-palaka (gate keeper) found at the 'mosque' site

Summary
of findings

We may now sum up the findings based on both literary and
archaeological/epigraphic evidence:

1All the literary sources without exception, until the Secularists began
their negationist masquerade, are unanimous that a Rama temple existed at the
site known since time immemorial as Rama Janmabhumi.

2.Archaeology confirms the existence of temples going back to Kushan times,
or about 2000 years. This date may well be extended by future excavations
assuming that such excavations will be permitted by politicians.

3.Archaeology records at least two destructions: the first in the 12th-13th
century; the second, later, in all probability in the 16th. This agrees well
with history and tradition that were temple destructions following the Ghorid
invasions (after 1192 AD) and restored, and was destroyed again in 1528 by Babar
who replaced it with a mosque. This is the famous  or infamous  Babri
Masjid that was demolished by kar-sevaks on
December 6, 1992.

Another 12th century inscription found at the 'mosque' site

4.A large inscription discovered at the site dating to 11th-12th century
records the existence of numerous temples including a magnificent one in which
Hari-Vishnu was honored as destroyer of the ten-headed Ravana. Ayodhya was
always known as a temple city.

These facts
drawing upon several literary and archaeological sources leave no doubt at all
that a temple located at a site sacred to the Hindus was destroyed to build a
mosque under Babars express orders.